Reality Doesn't Exist

[LongTimeWaiting]

...Until you measure it.

Ted is a happy man who finds the humor in everything. He views reality as a fun adventure.

Mike is a miserable man. He sees the harshness of everything and ignores the good.

These two people are experiencing reality quite differently. We all do. So, it's reasonable to say, a human cannot accurately define what reality is since they're unable to view reality in an unbiased manner.

But, then you say, if we're unable to unbiasedly view reality, what can? Is there someone or something that's able to accurately define and label what true reality is?

It's possible a machine can define what reality is and what reality adhere's by, but until then, we're unable to live in true reality, we only live in our reality.

Hope everyone is well.

 

[Astonish]

Interesting..
Time and time again mushrooms and DMT show me reality is a fallacy...
I am going to be sharing another DMT journey that goes well into this theorem, after I post take a look and put your thoughts?
Happy travels confrere

 

[ETERNAL]

...Until you measure it. True, but it does exist. Its a paradox.

Ted = MEASUREMENT is = MEASUREMENT a = MEASUREMENT happy = MEASUREMENT man = MEASUREMENT who = MEASUREMENT finds = MEASUREMENT the = MEASUREMENT humor = MEASUREMENT in = MEASUREMENT everything = GOD.

You know perfectly well reality doesn't exist until you measure it my friend. So Tom, Mike, the future machine with all the answers, every word you wrote and even yourself is measurement = duality = illusion. This subjective reality is an illusion, but it IS a very real experience. Everything exists because GOD exists. GOD is infinite consciousness, the eternal soul, the divine being.
God is actual reality my friend. We are one.

 

[donfoolio]

Reminds me of the church of the subgenius

The TriPrimality:

"Bob" is.
"Bob" becomes.
"Bob" is not.
Nothing is; Nothing becomes;
Nothing is not.

Thus: Nothing Is Everything.
Therefore: Everything is "Bob."

 

[Cactus Man]

reality is largely in the eye of the beholder but do not allow this simple truth to override some of the other truths of reality. we need to have some level of distinction between things otherwise we are powerless to change or effect them.

 

[Eaglepath]

Yeah just imagine that you are a cool little DMT elf chilling in hyperspace... then one day you get the idea and try a new molecule called: MDT. After inhaling a 50mg dose you suddenly find yourself in Harlem looking at your fellow gang members.... you start to think: fuck I died.. this is not good.. NOT GOOD AT ALL! then you start to get totally panic when things like: smell, tast, breath, hearing, senses, motoric movement etc starts to unfold.. Now is when the bad trip starts! but finally after 10 minutes you are back with the Jesters, snakes and other aliens.. thank god!

 

[pitubo]

Making public statements that "reality does not exist" is self-contradictory.

 

[LongTimeWaiting]

Making public statements that "reality does not exist" is self-contradictory.

Can you explain why you think this instead of saying it as a statement. And I said it doesn't exist until you measure it.

 

[dragonrider]

Making public statements that "reality does not exist" is self-contradictory.

Can you explain why you think this instead of saying it as a statement. And I said it doesn't exist until you measure it.

Suppose i say something like: "there is no such thing as the truth". Is that sentence true or not?

 

[ETERNAL]

Making public statements that "reality does not exist" is self-contradictory.

Can you explain why you think this instead of saying it as a statement. And I said it doesn't exist until you measure it.

I assumed you were talking about this. I just took it to the next level.

Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler's experiment then asks -- at which point does the object decide?

Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.

"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.

 

[LongTimeWaiting]

Suppose i say something like: "there is no such thing as the truth". Is that sentence true or not?

That cannot be answered by me because I don't actually know what the truth is, I simply make my best judgment... But, I would say I agree that there is no "truth"... unless you measure it. If it's not measured it's impossible to say what the truth is.

 

[Eaglepath]

Truth and reality is concepts created by language.. language is man made.. a creative gift sent by the gods or something with we could communicate.. We then created the illusion of truth and reality to really keep us busy ever since..

Illusions are real... they exist no?

I wonder if language was in our head before we could talk... if so.. which language? and who spoke?..

 

[Sakkadelic]

Suppose i say something like: "there is no such thing as the truth". Is that sentence true or not?

That cannot be answered by me because I don't actually know what the truth is, I simply make my best judgment... But, I would say I agree that there is no "truth"... unless you measure it. If it's not measured it's impossible to say what the truth is.

Well you should at least try to answer it:grin:

 

[OneIsEros]

...Until you measure it.

Ted is a happy man who finds the humor in everything. He views reality as a fun adventure.

Mike is a miserable man. He sees the harshness of everything and ignores the good.

These two people are experiencing reality quite differently. We all do. So, it's reasonable to say, a human cannot accurately define what reality is since they're unable to view reality in an unbiased manner.

But, then you say, if we're unable to unbiasedly view reality, what can? Is there someone or something that's able to accurately define and label what true reality is?

It's possible a machine can define what reality is and what reality adhere's by, but until then, we're unable to live in true reality, we only live in our reality.

Hope everyone is well.

I'd refer you to Plato's Protagoras and Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil for the fullest treatment of these issues. I personally do not side with perspectival views of reality, summed up in the maxim by Protagoras that "man is the measure". Plato and Aristotle both worked quite hard to show why this could not be the case. Nietzsche however affirmed a totalizing perspectivism (a self-consciously paradoxical statement), and developed Protagoras' position in some very interesting and compelling ways, which Protagoras himself would never have thought of.

 

[pitubo]

Making public statements that "reality does not exist" is self-contradictory.

Can you explain why you think this instead of saying it as a statement.

Can you explain why you think that "Reality doesn't exist"? Your OP is no more than a few statements with hardly any substantive relevance to a hypothesized existence of reality. At best it can be read as an attempted musing on subjectivity related differences in the personalized appreciation of reality.

And I said it doesn't exist until you measure it.

Experience is a basic form of measurement. We know reality exists because we keep experiencing it. You know you exist, because you keep experiencing yourself. An altered appreciation of yourself as may be caused by a change of mood doesn't fundamentally negate your physical existence.

Reality is that which does not go away when you stop looking at it (or -- for the postmodernists -- attempt to redefine it.)

 

[pitubo]

Suppose i say something like: "there is no such thing as the truth". Is that sentence true or not?

Suppose you say "1 + 2 = 5".

You can say anything and it doesn't need to imply that there is any truth to it. Not even if it sounds logical, not even if you use the word truth many times. That's not how truth works.

 

[dragonrider]

Suppose i say something like: "there is no such thing as the truth". Is that sentence true or not?

That cannot be answered by me because I don't actually know what the truth is, I simply make my best judgment... But, I would say I agree that there is no "truth"... unless you measure it. If it's not measured it's impossible to say what the truth is.

But the question here is: could it be true?
I mean, if it is true....wouldn't it be false automatically? As it would require at least one instance of truth?

So i guess that is what pitubo meant when he said that denying reality is a contradiction. As it states there is at least one thing that is real, wich is that nothing is real.

 

[pitubo]

So i guess that is what pitubo meant when he said that denying reality is a contradiction. As it states there is at least one thing that is real, wich is that nothing is real.

Nope, that is not what I meant.

The nature of the contradiction is that there needs to be a reality in which to make any statements about reality. It is that simple.

Your argument is logical, mine is is substantial.

I doubt that any "real" arguments can be made on the basis of "pure" logic alone. Logic can only provide consistency, but truth needs an ultimate dereference to the underlying substance of reality.

 

[Lumina]

As taken from a known movie series:

Q: “ - What is real? “

A: “ - That which is irreplaceable.”

 

[dragonrider]

So i guess that is what pitubo meant when he said that denying reality is a contradiction. As it states there is at least one thing that is real, wich is that nothing is real.

Nope, that is not what I meant.

The nature of the contradiction is that there needs to be a reality in which to make any statements about reality. It is that simple.

Your argument is logical, mine is is substantial.

I doubt that any "real" arguments can be made on the basis of "pure" logic alone. Logic can only provide consistency, but truth needs an ultimate dereference to the underlying substance of reality.

Well, that is exactly what i thought you meant.

I simply wanted to avoid sentences like "a reality in wich something can be said", because i wanted to avoid the discussion to take a semantic turn about what is meant with the very words 'reality', 'truth' 'real', etc. A tactic that could be deployed to dodge your argument by providing a smokescreen.

I meant the statement that 'something is real' as meaning that there is a reality in wich such an assesment could be made. And 'nothing is real' as there simply not being such a framework, though ofcourse there maybe could be a concept of reality that is lacking any real stuff.